Why should I trust science when it's impossible to define colors?

Why should I trust science when it's impossible to define colors?

Other urls found in this thread:

stray-ideas.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-solipsism-is-impossible.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Idiot

It makes you think isn't?

It doesn't matter. You can see the blue color. I can see it too. We both agree when we see the same color.

Define that thing you call color. Give a definition of the specific impression. You can't. Your brain is playing tricks on itself.

Colors are defined by wavelength. The subjective experience of colors may change from individual to individual but that's due to the makeup of rods and cones. It's all empirically measurable.

If we say that the bananas in first pic are yellow, then we know irregardless of what we experience, in asserting that hue being defined as yellow. That I might see it as your purple is beside the point that we both know it as yellow, seeing that we are both educated to associate that stimulus with said name.

How do I know that when you see a dog, to me it actually looks like a cat?

kek I was about to shitpost about qualia today as well.
Looks like you beat me to it

What are you talking about idiot?

Everyone sees blue as blue. That's why we all call it "blue".

maybe your blue looks like my red.
We just both call it blue because your blue is always my red so it doesn't change.

No no no no no NOO!!!!
That's not how it work you fucking faggot!!!!

God wouldn't create us that way. Trust me, I would know best as the son of a preacher.

Colors are defined by light spectra.

What you smell might be what someone else hears. How can you be sure it isn't so?

By testing synesthesia and crossmodal correspondence. Not germane to the thread.

are we supposed to believe that everyone works this way?

Crossmodal correspondence is well established to be universal. Synesthesia is not, but it is testable. Never heard of odorant-audio synesthesia though.

You think this is funny?

Grunge music smells like deodorant to me.

"light spectrum"

You know with the lights out its less dangerous

what do you mean? we can test that. just ask everyone here which image in your post looks correct.

second image in your post is clearly the way fruit is meant to be.

right guys?

You're obviously trolling. Of course it's the 3rd.

Because the model which resembles the truth best becomes reality

no it's the first you fucking tools

qualia is bullshit and here's how you can prove it :

1) use a prism to decompose visible light into different colors or more simply take a crayola set

2) ask people how many different colors they see

3) once they agree that there are 9 different colors, use a painter palette to mix the three primary different colors to obtain the others

4) your problem is now reduced at proving that everybody experiences the same three primary colors

4) take a shit because you are doing serious business

5) paint three sports car in red, blue and green, ask people which one looks the least ridiculous : everyone now agrees on the same red

6) ask people which color looks the most faggy : red and blue or red and green ? everyone now agrees on the same red

problem solved

>5) paint three sports car in red, blue and green, ask people which one looks the least ridiculous : everyone now agrees on the same red
>6) ask people which color looks the most faggy : red and blue or red and green ? everyone now agrees on the same red
why red?

blue and green are fine.

I mean unless my blue and green are not the same as yours.

have you ever seen a green sports car or a blue sports car ? that's why

Subtractive colors
>Magenta
>Yellow
>Cyan
If all combined then the product would be black
Question:
Why do we even have black ink when we have subtractive ink?
So that the company selling the ink can increase their profits?

This thread made me realize that the people on Veeky Forums who argue that qualia don't exist, don't actually understand what is meant by the word, and instead think it's some kind of magical metaphysical phenomenon.

Oh wow, so many things suddenly make a lot of sense now. Thanks, OP.

It's falsifiable, and it's wrong.
For a human there exist more shades of green than blue, so if someone can distinguish more shades of green than there exist shades of blue, you know they don't see green as blue.

Underrated post, this is pretty much it.

no it's not

we aren't talking about reality but about percived reality

percived reality is not mesurable either way we could read minds

then what's the point is asking the question, if you already know the answer

lamborghinis are nice in green.
Maseratis look good in blue.

But hey, how would a poor ass unsophisticated fucker like you know that?


because for every unit of black you want to print, you'd need more magenta, more yellow and more cyan.
If anything, black ink is easier to obtain.

>For a human there exist more shades of green than blue
for you.

the question is wether OP should trust science knowing that, not if that is true or not.

Colors fade to each other as we increase wavelength or frequency. I know that yellow doesn't fade to blue without first passing through green. It's impossible to mix the two colors without producing green. By induction, the order in which you cycle through the colors by wavelength can't change, only the general shift of the hues. So you see a world more redshifted or blueshifted than I do. You can't see a greenshifted world because you must perceive red as farther down the color spectrum. I know we both match the order of colors in a rainbow, so we must match names to the spectrum.

>hi I understand nothing about qualia so I will attempt to give a physical argument instead

purple doesn't actually exist

I find your self-satisfaction to be really upsetting considering that you totally misunderstand the problem

You're actually living in the Matrix

There are two types of qualia: Those the vary per individual, and those that don't. Philosophy can't ever make sense of which is which because it can only consider hypotheticals and thought experiments.

Scientifically, we have control variables and we can actually test if any given type of quality differs per person. Hint: Communication is too uniform to be a cosmic cryptography problem.

Nature uses a lot of colors as ways to communicate with each other, often danger cues. This should be enough evidence that color is acknowledged in the biosystem.

>5) paint three sports car in red, blue and green, ask people which one looks the least ridiculous : everyone now agrees on the same red

YOU'RE MAKING A LEAP HERE AND YOU FAILED

PERHAPS WE ARE CONDITIONED TO LIKE RED SPORTS CARS

WOULD A KALAHARI BUSHMAN BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHICH WAS MOST RIDICULOUS?

PROBLEMATIC TO SAY THE LEAST

the problem is not correctly specified so you can't conclude that either

The seeing different colors autism has been debunked thousands times before already. All the colors also correspond to a brightness value that doesn't change for anybody unless you're colorblind. And if you're colorblind we can identify that very easily.
So if my 'blue' was your 'pink', you would see that color much brighter in the color tests, but you don't. There is nothing that can make you see color differently than I do.

> color wheel
EM spectrum or get

>Colors are defined by wavelength.

>The subjective experience of colors may change from individual to individual.

Pick 1

Open image in Photoshop.

Select Eye Dropper.

See those numbers?

The numbers do not lie.

>percived reality is not mesurable either way we could read minds
We can, to a degree. Most brains respond in a similar fashion to their eyes being flooded with the same color, thus we can tell what color you are looking at through an EKG. We can also tell if you've been in the same room in a virtualized environment by how your brain reacts, and, to a lesser degree, tell what words you are hearing or images you are looking at from a baseline.

Neat huh?

In anycase, cut back on the drugs. Color wavelengths had been quantifiable for centuries before LSD was invented, and brain baseline activity from said have been around for nearly as long as the EKG. There is no great mystery revolving around the question "is blue really blue?"

...at least not until you get into linguistics...

Some people are color blind, ya know. That doesn't mean colors are subjective, anymore than light is subjective, because some people are completely blind.

You are trying too hard to make something of nothing.

>Colors are defined by wavelength.
No.
Colours are defined by the experience produced by light of particular wavelengths.

Colors are defined by wavelength.

What you experience defines nothing, save what you experience, and is ultimately meaningless to anyone else, unless you can convey it through definitions you both share - such as words corresponding to wavelengths.

You said some shit about rods and cones and then make an example out of blind people.

I feel like I am being trolled.

I said no such shit user, that was some other user. But this whole thread is full of shit, so I can't be bothered to go back and see what you might be on about.

If it was something about knowing how cones and rods transmit light stimulus to the brain, and how the brain generally reacts to said, then yeah, we know that shit. If some part of that system is damaged it doesn't make the color spectrum suddenly not exist, it simply means the individual cannot experience or does not experience it correctly.

Individual experience is not the totality reality. If it was, there'd be no need for science or any other system to filter all that bullshit out and quantify everything, and no two individuals would ever argue about, nor agree about, anything, and communication in general, including this inane conversation, would be impossible.

So the fact that we can even have this conversation proves that there is a common reality, and what we are currently discussing (ie. color) is one of the much simpler aspects of that reality to empirically quantify. Yellow and blue dress memes be damned.

This. I can't believe it took 5 replies to get the correct answer.

Also OP should google quale.

what if brightness, not color is experienced differently

you're just translating the problem

Being deliberately obtuse is not acute.

Colours are completely well defined.
Specific colours have specific wavelengths and the way our brain processes them makes in the end no difference.

We agreed on colours by assigning a colour to a specific thing (e.g leafs are green, paper white etc.). You may think of red and see in your mind what i call red but when we talk about a specific thing we both assign it the colour of the same name.

>>Colors are defined by wavelength
in what model dumdum?

In every coherent model about optics that exists.

yeah and guess what, nobody on earth can agree on what coherent means.

it means a system has no contradictions.
Every person knows what coherent means.

the fuck is wrong with
????

>it means a system has no contradictions.

>STEM kids in charging of thinking about scientific realism
>STEm kids in charge of thinking at all


your model is mathematics and as such, it is encoded in ZFC, which nobody on earth can show that it is consistent.

unless, you take you mathematical model, and inside it, you have define formally what coherence means, you are fucked.

1/10 bait.

Op just straight up questioned science because of a philosophy, and here you are trying to act like we need an abstract definition. On a science board. Get off of Veeky Forums muggle

If we couldn't, your CD, DVD, and BlueRay players wouldn't work.

...and I wouldn't have any idea what you were on about when you said "coherent".

Even as a philosophy question, this is bunk. May as well go on about Achilles outrunning turtles. He's just being deliberately obtuse.

But then, why do people agree which colours go wel together, huh?
Why are some colour shoes ok with some colour dresses?

Yes, but only women and a handful of gay men seem capable of making this determination.

Though, crappy jokes aside, color harmonies have been shown to have similar effects to audio harmonies on the brain. The brain apparently doesn't like it when the tick rates of different axioms don't sync up, thus a lot of folks have the same reaction to clashing colors as disharmonious audio tones.

>Even as a philosophy question, this is bunk.
I think it's a fine question. It doesn't seem there's a clear way to show that what I experience looking at an object we call blue is the same thing you or anyone else experiences when they see that same object.

There is, if you bothered to read the thread, rather than insisting on color, and all of reality, being entirely subjective.

As stated elsewhere, most brains react the same way to the same colors, to the point where we can tell what color you are looking at with a simple EKG monitor.

Now, if you want to go into pseudo-philosophical bizzaro land, and claim we can't tell that two people are experiencing basically the same thing based on how their brain is reacting... ie. that brain activity has nothing to do with experience - then you are so far outside the realm of science and modern philosophy that no one can help you until you get outta rehab.

At the very lease, we can empirically prove that they are seeing the same light, referring to the same general wavelength when using words for the same color, and that their brains are in agreement as to what they are seeing, even preferably... Dunno what more you could want.

preferably = *preverbally

Why stop at colors?
How do you know other people exist at all? How do you disprove solipsism?

Protip: you can't

Brains react a similar way to the same wavelength of light because of evolution shaping our response to various objects. Lack of green for instance could be frightening or stressful because it means there are no plants around -> nothing that eats plants around -> no food. This is insufficient to say that we see them colours the same way. Which isn't to say that I think we don't, I think it's likely we do, but there's no hard evidence for it.

Well ya can't really, but ya can call anyone stuck on the idea an egotistical idiot:
stray-ideas.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-solipsism-is-impossible.html

All the evidence suggests we are seeing the same colors the same way. We have instruments that tell us what color something is independant of our experience. We agree with the numbers these instruments return. We agree on what color things are.

Even webpages depend on the fact that roses are #FF0000 and violets are #0000FF.

Again, if there was no common reality and no common experience, we couldn't have this conversation, or language in general.

Granted, language itself affects interpretation of reality, but that's a whole other can of worms.

>We have instruments that tell us what color something is independant of our experience.
Misuse of the word colour. Here you are referring to wavelength. The two are not the same. Colour is an experience, generally perceived in response to a specific wavelength hitting light detecting cells on the retina. However colour can be perceived by direct electronic stimulation of the brain, without any wavelength of light being involved at all. It is therefore incorrect to confuse the two.

>having such a low IQ

Colors are defined by wavelength.

What you experience defines nothing, save what you experience, and is ultimately meaningless to anyone else, unless you can convey it through definitions you both share - such as words corresponding to wavelengths.

Vu ja day.

>Colors are defined by wavelength.
No, they're not. Case in point: we named colours before we knew about electromagnetic waves, wagelengths, etc.

Take the people who see a colour when a certain tone reaches their ear. From their perspective how do you decide which frequency takes precedent as defining the colour; the wavelength of light or the frequency of sound which elicits the same experience?

What good is science if it can't even study subjective experience?

This particular experience isn't very subjective, certainly not as much so as OP is trying to suggest. Same wavelength, same color, same experience in every measurable way.

Science doesn't generally deal with shit you can't measure, but this is all perfectly measurable.

We nonetheless were looking at wavelengths, and giving specific names to specific wavelengths.

>Take the people who see a colour when a certain tone reaches their ear.
Synthesia is another thing, but we're not talking about deficient individuals but experience in the general populous.

But while we're on the tangent, that's another thing we can measure, exactly how the brain reacts to certain pitches and tones - to disharmonious tones vs. harmonious ones, so not only do we know our brains are reacting the same to the same colors (barring defects and deficiencies), we know we're hearing the same things. Insomuch as it is possible to know.

>Colors are defined by wavelength.
Furthermore, what of someone who cannot distinguish, say, 550nm and 650nm light. He perceives them as the same colour. Does he see red or green?

>Same wavelength, same color, same experience in every measurable way.


are you retarded ?

when you dream, you experience colors but there are no photons involved

Just because someone is color blind does not mean the world of color does not exist and does not do so consistently.

As to what he's "experiencing", you could check it with an EKG and compare to find out.

>irregardless

Memory is merely recollection of past experience. Color is still defined by wavelength. It's not as if suddenly everyone needs something red in the room as an immediate example to know what someone is referring to when they say, "red".

>when you dream, you experience colors but there are no photons involved
Or when we zap the visual cortex, same thing.

But if he's not seeing the same colour as normal people see when his eye catches one of the two wavelengths, it proves that colour isn't defined by the wavelength of light at all.

...

no it's not you fucking retard

close your eyelids and poke your eyes, you'll see "light" even if there are no photons or memory involved

kill yourself retarded troll REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

He's seeing the same color, his brain or eyes just can't interpret the input. Blind people participating in the same reality you are, they simply are missing out on some bits while taking more notice of others.

>He's seeing the same color,
But he's clearly not. His eye is receiving the same wavelength, but he perceives it differently. He sees a different colour.

Jabbing yourself in the eye may generate colors, but you can only name those colors due to previous experience with the common reality and associated language.

If he takes an instrument and measures the wavelength, he will find it is red, regardless of his ability to interpret the color. (Provided he's not so blind he can't read.) Colorblind or not, the world continues to be as it is.

NO YOU FUCKING RETARD EVEN A BORN BLIND CAN EXPERIENCE IT

YOU DISGUSTING FAGGOT PEOPLE BORN BLIND STILL DREAM IN COLOR

WHY DONT YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND ACCPET THAT YOU WERE WRONG YOU FUCKING AUTIST SOPHIST PEDERAST ?

>citation needed
Interesting if true though. Granted, if the brain is intact, and the eyes are what's missing, presumably all the mechanisms for interpreting color are there, but I doubt a person who is born blind can interpret any such imagined colors into language. It'd be an interesting research subject to see if they had similar brain stimulus when imagining such colors as do sighted individuals.

On the other hand, and I dare not say this before for fear of encouraging the sophists, but if your language doesn't have a word for 'green' you do actually tend to be color blind to it, so studies have shown.

When I was in 4th grade I had thoughts like that image. After I learned more I realized that was incorrect.

Stop replying, your being baited. See pic.

...

>His eye is receiving the same wavelength,
Can this be proven?

Meh, whole thread is bait, but I can only spend so much time on /pol/.

With a portable ocular spectrophotometer.